Letters to the Editor

As Stephen Brush noted in Creation/ Evolution VIII, creationists cite the
philosophical and religious views of famous scientists such as Kepler, Newton,
Bacon, and Kelvin to somehow justify their supernaturalistic approach Their
implication seem, to be that the scientific credibility and fame of men such as
these are linked to their supernaturalistic views, as varied as these views may
have been. I am amazed that creationists would use such a weak and groundless
justification for supernaturalism and, therefore, creationism. I would like to
add my own comments.

Where is the supernaturalism in Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, in Newton's three laws of motion. in Bacon's inductive method of
experimentation, or in Kelvin's thermodynamics? Independent of whether
scientists have taken a naturalistic approach or a supernaturalistic approach
(or any other approach for that matter, as I think creationists are being far
too reductionist to restrict the number to two—what about theistic evolution,
for example?), their contributions to science are weighed only by the
contributions' correlations with nature, with the real world. Their
contributions stand on their own scientific merit—not on revelation, religious
belief, clerical or secular authority, or personal worldviews.

- page 43 -

If Kepler's
theistic views on origins can be justified by his laws, then logically so could
his Pythagorean mysticism and his pagan feelings about heliocentricity; if
Newton's views on a supernaturalistic origin of the world can be justified by
his mechanics, then logically so could his Arian views on Christianity; or if
Kelvin's skepticism about the long age of the sun could be justified by his work
in thermal physics, then logically so could his calculation that man-made
machines could not fly. Scientific theories in all fields exist independent of
religious contexts, and, if we mix science with religious views to seek what is
objectively true, we are not being scientific. To quote from a recent letter to
Science (April 16, 1982) from James C. Hickman, Botany Department, University of
California, Berkeley:

... Scientists (when they are behaving scientifically—that is, not all the time)
do not 'believe in' anything except their ability to
gather reasonably objective information about the universe. Rather, they
tentatively accept propositions they are unable to reject using
available information. Despite our increasing uncertainty about events at
progressively greater removes in time, the origins of life
and the origins of the universe can be and are being explored scientifically.

Like all human beings, scientists embrace a myriad of nonscientific behaviors,
including religion (from atheism to fundamentalism) and politics
(from far-left to far-right), but none of these various behaviors have any
direct bearing upon the validity of the science they may have accompanied. As I
have written to Dr. Morris, if the theism of some scientists can be correlated
to their contributions, then the atheism of other scientists can be correlated
to their contributions, resulting in theism and atheism both being equally
justified! Such absurdity is to me additional evidence that creationism cannot
be scientifically justified; creationists are using an impotent argument to
indulge in self-gratification of their religious views, which are identical with
their creationist views.

Steven Brush provided documentation showing that Henry Morris was wrong to claim
that Lord Kelvin was a creationist (Creation/Evolution VIII). Morris was also
wrong in claiming that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist. The following quote
is from a letter Newton wrote to Thomas Burnet during the winter of 19801981
(the full text can be found on pp. 329-334 of The Correspondence of Isaac
Newton, Vol. II, 1676-1687, edited by H. W. Turnbull, Cambridge University
Press, 1960):

- page 44 -

As to Moses I do not think his description of ye creation either philosophical
or feigned, but that he described realities in a language artificially adapted
to ye sense of ye vulgar ... his business being not to correct the vulgar
notions in matters philosophical but to adapt a description of ye creation as
handsomely as he could to ye sense and capacity of ye vulgar. So when he tells
us of two great lights and the stars made ye fourth day, I do not think their
creation from beginning to end was done ye fourth day nor in any one day of ye
creation... .

... But in ye third day for Moses to describe ye creation of seas when there was
no such thing done neither in reality nor in appearance... .

Clearly, Newton was not a special creationist. The letter goes on to indicate
that Newton believed in a
day-age theory, with the first two "days" being of indeterminate length and that
the diurnal motion of the earth was built up by the application of a constant
force. There is no evidence of any similarity in the sequence or timing of
events between Newton's day-ages and the days of the Genesis story.

Brent A. Becker
Charlottesville, VA

Although I have found Creation/ Evolution VII and VIII to be most
enlightening, informative, and entertaining, I do have one criticism.

One of the more infuriating tactics used by writers of the creationist
camp is a tendency to employ secondary, rather than original, sources
(frequently out of context) to bolster their arguments. Although your writers
are more accurate in their citations, they too are often found to be using
textbooks and other secondary sources in their bibliographies. I fully
appreciate the difficulties which are associated with trying to prepare articles
when at a distance from a good reference library, but I feel that it is
essential to provide complete and up-to-date sources if the arguments are to be
compelling. Perhaps your editorial board could suggest that authors spend a bit
more time in researching the literature.

Overall, however, I applaud your efforts to combat the resurgence of creationism
and its underlying fundamentalism.

Donald G. Albertson
Griggsville, IL

Robert E. Kofahl, science coordinator for the Creation-Science Research
Center, states in his letter to Creation/Evolution IX that I owe his chief,
Kelly Segraves, "an apology and a retraction." The matter at hand deserves
neither.

First, Robert M. Price, in an article that inspired Kofahl's request, was
referring as he now has made clear, to my article, "A Survey of Creationist
Field Research" (issue VI) in which I suggested that efforts of some
creationists to confirm Genesis through scientific research had
been a disaster.

- page 45 -

That article dealt with projects of the Institute for Creation Research,
evidently the competitors of the CSRC in seeking acclaim for announcing the
co-existence of dinosaurs and humans on the basis of tracks in the rocks along
the Paluxy River in Texas. I did not know then that the CSRC had also entered
the contest and hence had not referred at all to that organization or to
Segraves.

But Kofahl's letter confuses the main issue. Local artisans long ago embellished
dinosaur tracks found near Glen Rose, but that is less important than what the
ICR and the CSRC have turned up since in the way of undoctored material. As of
now, no "man footprints" have been validated. In fact, those reported have been
questioned by no less than other creation-oriented people, such as those from
Baylor University (Baptist) and Columbia Union College (Seventh-Day Adventist).

Creationists have been deterred from removing natural objects from much of the
area, a lot of it now state park land, and thus frequently have had to rely on
making plaster casts, "rubbings," or photographs of tracks. But these are not
amenable to scientific study as I pointed out in 1975 (Liberty magazine,
September/ October), and Segraves' photos are hardly substitutes for the real
thing.

Professor John D. Morris, of the University of Oklahoma, who has worked on ICR
projects, reported in his book, Those Incredible Dinosaurs
... and the People Who Knew Them, about a discovery of "the most perfect [man
track] ever found" and then commented that within a year "it had completely
eroded away" (page 49). This is regrettable. The Texas Memorial Museum of the
University of Texas in nearby Austin could have legally found a way to preserve
such invaluable evidence, and it is unfortunate that creationist explorers did
not seek the aid of specialists.

Any paleontologist would be delighted to share in a discovery of such
importance. The remarkable discovery of new hominids in East Africa made Donald
Johanson of "Lucy" fame a television celebrity. The rewards are substantial.

Unless Segraves and Kofahl are willing to follow the accepted methods of
science—as in description, publication, and deposition of materials for others
to examine— the Paluxy claims will continue to rank as a hoax comparable to P.
T. Barnum's "Cardiff Giant."

In "Fundamentals" by Peter Steinhart (Audobon, September, 1981), Kofahl stated,
"1 just don't think our science is all that competent. Besides, in my personal
view, it's bad theology to argue with scientists. . . . Since the fall of Adam,
man's intellect, his emotions, and his will have been shaken up. Therefore to
expect that we can use arguments to the intellect to persuade these
evolutionists . . . is bad theology."